167 karma · joined April 23, 2015
It's like $130k/year, I don't think you can even find an average engineer at this price
This is the major reason I unsubscribed from Wired, most articles from them are unnecessary long yet convey only a few major points, while coloring other minor points with too many unrelated facts.
I guess there are readers who enjoys that writing style but for a case like this, I just don't understand the motives.
I second this is not about US security but about Google losing their mobile market share.
Beside personally criticizing people by their personal choice, which I found baseless, there is zero information here. There are people with that life style like that all the time, just because they happen to be tech CEO doesn't mean it's a sign to a macro thing like bubble.
One thing I've been regreting the most after 10 year living in the valley is that I shouldn't have listened to the 'tech bubble' propaganda back in 2016, nor delayed buying my first house, which should have saved me ton of cash.
The common reason I heard from most of my friends who turned down FB, or quitted FB was that the working culture is too demanding and kind of pressure. Google on the other hand is more laid back and family friendly. So people who started building a family will prefer Google over FB. The nice thing is FB tends to offer higher level than Google, so in some cases, if you get matched, it works out pretty well.
I have a friend who worked at FB, after he came back from paternity leave, his manager told him he has been slacking (his reviews were always "meet all"/"exceeding" before), it's time to put in more work, he quitted after a month.
Usually I don't complain much about the gov, but just look at the construction mess they've created on 101, it's been like that for more than 4 years!
Innovation doesn't just mean creating new products (the Airpod is one of Apple's killer product by the way), improving current products used by millions of people while keeping them coming back to buy more and more is not easy, this is also counted as innovation in my book.
Beside VmWare and Akamai, I haven't seen any company founded by university faculty that have survived and made impact (even though VMware was tiny compared to what it is today when EMC acquired them)
I was thinking the first investor is the one that took the big risk investing in the company, shouldn't they have the rights to cash out first when there is a liquidation event?
I found this approach is very effective for students because they basically learn the skills from their peers or even roommates, and if they are friends on campus, they can ask questions any time outside of TA hours. My alma mater has an excellent undergrad TA program where students who performed well in the course are recruited to be TAs when the course is offered later again.
Only married couple who both work in tech can afford buying a home, and major of them still need to send kids to private schools because only a handful of cities have good public schools, and these cities are extremely expensive (Palo Alto, Los Altos,...)
Here (Bay Area) people usually don't apply for jobs, specially jobs at startups, unless they're really into the products/team/tech/... Even old-school walking-dead companies like Cisco/IBM/HPE pay way better than most startups in term of cash compensation. And given the high risk of failure, startup should sell itself hard to attract talents.
I also found those questions are normal, far from being arrogant.
Since my daughter turned 3, I allowed her to watch 1 hour/day (2 hours during weekend), and have been very consistent to this rule. After a few weeks, she voluntarily turns off her iPad after the quota ends and plays with her toys, lego,... And she shows no desire to sneakily watch like other kids that being restricted, and never throws tantrum over it. I don't know if this is considered "self driven" but I'm very happy with the way she behaves.
Technology is part of our life, don't understand why parents chose to exclude it from their kids.